The law, called State Question 775, forbids courts “from considering or using international law” and “from considering or using Sharia Law.”
The US legal system is based on Anglo-Saxon common law. Many of the original thirteen colonies have clauses in their constitutions stating that British common law should be used where state and federal laws have no precedents. The Northwest Ordinance passed by the Congress of the Confederation (the interim Congress before the Constitution was enacted) in 1787 said that common law would be used to adjudicate cases. Every state in the Union uses common law except Louisiana, which uses Napoleonic law.
For centuries -- before and ever since the Revolution -- American courts have cited English common law cases -- international law -- in their decisions. That means that it has always been perfectly reasonable for American judges to cite common law decisions from England, Scotland and Wales. It's also reasonable to consider common law decisions from other common law nations, which include Malaysia, Singapore, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, India, Ghana, Cameroon, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, Hong Kong and Australia. And since Louisiana is based on Napoleonic law, it's reasonable for them to cite decisions from France and French colonies.
If Oklahoma wants to forbid courts from considering decisions in China, Russia, Myanmar, Germany, Sweden, Finland and Burkina Faso, that's one thing -- we don't have any legal history with those countries. But you just can't toss out four centuries of American judicial precedent because you hate Muslims and "activist judges."
But what about Sharia law? In the original case that sparked this whole mess, a judge decided against a restraining order a wife requested against her abusive husband. The judge said the man was abiding by his Muslim beliefs regarding spousal duties.
First, this decision was overturned. So the application of Sharia law in New Jersey? Not happening.
Second, and more importantly, his decision was not based on Sharia law. This was based on the man's belief. If that man was a Christian or Jew who believed the same thing (and there are plenty of them), the judge would have ruled the same. Courts often take into account the beliefs and fears of the individuals when making decisions and imposing sentences. For example, in many jurisdictions you can shoot someone in cold blood if you are afraid. Don't believe it? Well, consider the case of Yoshihiro Hattori, the Japanese kid who was shot and killed in Louisiana one Halloween. The police didn't even think the shooter should be charged. He was finally tried and acquitted because Louisiana lets you shoot burglars, which of course the Japanese kid was not. But the killer thought he was, and was afraid. So he got 007 status.
Finally, some judges are, to put it kindly, loathe to grant restraining orders against husbands who demand spousal benefits. They pretend that the courts shouldn't get involved in family disputes. So they reach for any handy reason to give for why they think the man should get his way. The growing number of dead wives is a testament to this short-sightedness.
So, if the danger of Sharia law having any effect in Oklahoma is nil, why did they bring this up? Was Rex Duncan, the Oklahoma representative who authored the amendment, woefully ignorant of the huge body of international Anglo-Saxon common law precedents cited in American jurisprudence? Or did he knowingly and willfully ignore this and press ahead with this amendment because it serves his political purposes? The same purposes that were served by all the screaming about the Ground Zero mosque? Which, by the way, isn't a mosque (it has basketball courts!) and isn't at Ground Zero.
It's one thing to spout lies and nonsense on FOX News to get your guys elected. But messing with the Constitution of your state to score political points is unethical, immoral and downright dangerous.
4 comments:
It's hard to make your point when your facts are so muddled.
First, common law and international law are not the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably. Since this is the foundation of your rant, your logic has failed.
Second, if you are going to point a link towards Wikipedia you should actually read and understand what is actually said at that link. Just because a nation uses a common law system does not mean they are the same laws as another nation that uses the common law system. Further, the idea of one common law nation using the common law precedents of another nation is ludicrous and is not, as you think, the way common law systems work. For further on this subject reference reception statute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_statute
Third, this is quite a unsubstantiated statement: The growing number of dead wives is a testament to this short-sightedness.
Do you have any facts or figures to back this up? Is there a higher rate of spousal murder now than in the past? Do you have anything, or is that just....fear mongering?
Lastly, consider the case of Yoshihiro Hattori. Yes, lets. Your knowledge of self defense is obviously so lacking that your arrogant condescension is positively oozing smug. There are a few people well versed in self defense law who post here and you should be careful how high you wave your petard lest you get hoisted upon it.
My humble fisking of your mess.
in many jurisdictions you can shoot someone in cold blood if you are afraid
Actually if you are afraid that is the exact opposite state of mind needed for 'cold blood', but I won't hold this ignorance against you. What I will is that in most, if not all jurisdictions you can shoot someone if you are afraid. It's called self defense, which also happens to be enshrined in English common law.
Now, you are leaving out a lot of the facts of the case. I assume purposely, because just a bit of research would allow you to explain this a bit more detailed rather than this hyped up lies and nonsense to score political points. One of the keys that you are conveniently leaving out is that a reasonable person, with the same knowledge as the defendant would also feel afraid. This is the reasonable person doctrine. You are also wrong when you say you can shoot someone because you are afraid. It's not that simple, and it's not that simple in the case you reference. You must be afraid, yes, but that fear is qualified as 'you must be in fear of your life or the life of an innocent person'.
So put it together and one must have a reasonable fear that one's life is in imminent jeopardy. In the case of the late Mr. Hattori it is irrelevant that he ended up not being a burglar. He, at the time of his death was doing a credible imitation of a burglar. You act like a burglar, and it is reasonable to expect the residents of the home to be 'afraid'. You act like a burglar who tries to break into an occupied home and it's reasonable to expect that you mean harm to the residents, harm that goes much beyond mere verbal insults.
It's hard to make your point when your facts are so muddled.
First, common law and international law are not the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably. Since this is the foundation of your rant, your logic has failed.
Second, if you are going to point a link towards Wikipedia you should actually read and understand what is said at that link. Just because a nation uses a common law system does not mean they are the same laws as another nation that uses the common law system. Further, the idea of one common law nation using the common law precedents of another nation is ludicrous and is not, as you think, the way common law systems work. For further on this subject reference reception statute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_statute
Third, this is quite a unsubstantiated statement: The growing number of dead wives is a testament to this short-sightedness.
Do you have any facts or figures to back this up? Is there a higher rate of spousal murder now than in the past? Do you have anything, or is that just....fear mongering?
Lastly, consider the case of Yoshihiro Hattori. Yes, lets. Your knowledge of self defense is obviously so lacking that your arrogant condescension is positively oozing smug. There are a few people well versed in self defense law who post here and you should be careful how high you wave your petard lest you get hoisted upon it.
My humble fisking of your mess.
in many jurisdictions you can shoot someone in cold blood if you are afraid
Actually if you are afraid that is the exact opposite state of mind needed for 'cold blood', but I won't hold this ignorance against you. What I will is that in most, if not all jurisdictions you can shoot someone if you are afraid. It's called self defense, which also happens to be enshrined in English common law.
Now, you are leaving out a lot of the facts of the case. I assume purposely, because just a bit of research would allow you to explain this a bit more detailed rather than this hyped up lies and nonsense to score political points. One of the keys that you are conveniently leaving out is that a reasonable person, with the same knowledge as the defendant would also feel afraid. This is the reasonable person doctrine. You are also wrong when you say you can shoot someone because you are afraid. It's not that simple, and it's not that simple in the case you reference. You must be afraid, yes, but that fear is qualified as 'you must be in fear of your life or the life of an innocent person'.
So put it together and one must have a reasonable fear that one's life is in imminent jeopardy. In the case of the late Mr. Hattori it is irrelevant that he ended up not being a burglar. He, at the time of his death was doing a credible imitation of a burglar. You act like a burglar, and it is reasonable to expect the residents of the home to be 'afraid'. You act like a burglar who tries to break into an occupied home and it's reasonable to expect that you mean harm to the residents, harm that goes much beyond mere verbal insults.
It's hard to make your point when your facts are so muddled.
First, common law and international law are not the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably. Since this is the foundation of your rant, your logic has failed.
Second, if you are going to point a link towards Wikipedia you should actually read and understand what is said at that link. Just because a nation uses a common law system does not mean they are the same laws as another nation that uses the common law system. Further, the idea of one common law nation using the common law precedents of another nation is ludicrous and is not, as you think, the way common law systems work. For further on this subject reference reception statute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_statute
Third, this is quite a unsubstantiated statement: The growing number of dead wives is a testament to this short-sightedness.
Do you have any facts or figures to back this up? Is there a higher rate of spousal murder now than in the past? Do you have anything, or is that just....fear mongering?
Lastly, consider the case of Yoshihiro Hattori. Yes, lets. Your knowledge of self defense is obviously so lacking that your arrogant condescension is positively oozing smug. There are a few people well versed in self defense law who post here and you should be careful how high you wave your petard lest you get hoisted upon it.
My humble fisking of your mess.
in many jurisdictions you can shoot someone in cold blood if you are afraid
Actually if you are afraid that is the exact opposite state of mind needed for 'cold blood', but I won't hold this ignorance against you. What I will is that in most, if not all jurisdictions you can shoot someone if you are afraid. It's called self defense, which also happens to be enshrined in English common law.
Now, you are leaving out a lot of the facts of the case. I assume purposely, because just a bit of research would allow you to explain this a bit more detailed rather than this hyped up lies and nonsense to score political points. One of the keys that you are conveniently leaving out is that a reasonable person, with the same knowledge as the defendant would also feel afraid. This is the reasonable person doctrine. You are also wrong when you say you can shoot someone because you are afraid. It's not that simple, and it's not that simple in the case you reference. You must be afraid, yes, but that fear is qualified as 'you must be in fear of your life or the life of an innocent person'.
So put it together and one must have a reasonable fear that one's life is in imminent jeopardy. In the case of the late Mr. Hattori it is irrelevant that he ended up not being a burglar. He, at the time of his death was doing a credible imitation of a burglar. You act like a burglar, and it is reasonable to expect the residents of the home to be 'afraid'. You act like a burglar who tries to break into an occupied home and it's reasonable to expect that you mean harm to the residents, harm that goes much beyond mere verbal insults.
It's hard to make your point when your facts are so muddled.
First, common law and international law are not the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably. Since this is the foundation of your rant, your logic has failed.
Second, if you are going to point a link towards Wikipedia you should actually read and understand what is said at that link. Just because a nation uses a common law system does not mean they are the same laws as another nation that uses the common law system. Further, the idea of one common law nation using the common law precedents of another nation is ludicrous and is not, as you think, the way common law systems work. For further on this subject reference reception statute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_statute
Third, this is quite a unsubstantiated statement: The growing number of dead wives is a testament to this short-sightedness.
Do you have any facts or figures to back this up? Is there a higher rate of spousal murder now than in the past? Do you have anything, or is that just....fear mongering?
Lastly, consider the case of Yoshihiro Hattori. Yes, lets. Your knowledge of self defense is obviously so lacking that your arrogant condescension is positively oozing smug. There are a few people well versed in self defense law who post here and you should be careful how high you wave your petard lest you get hoisted upon it.
My humble fisking of your mess.
in many jurisdictions you can shoot someone in cold blood if you are afraid
Actually if you are afraid that is the exact opposite state of mind needed for 'cold blood', but I won't hold this ignorance against you. What I will is that in most, if not all jurisdictions you can shoot someone if you are afraid. It's called self defense, which also happens to be enshrined in English common law.
Now, you are leaving out a lot of the facts of the case. I assume purposely, because just a bit of research would allow you to explain this a bit more detailed rather than this hyped up lies and nonsense to score political points. One of the keys that you are conveniently leaving out is that a reasonable person, with the same knowledge as the defendant would also feel afraid. This is the reasonable person doctrine. You are also wrong when you say you can shoot someone because you are afraid. It's not that simple, and it's not that simple in the case you reference. You must be afraid, yes, but that fear is qualified as 'you must be in fear of your life or the life of an innocent person'.
So put it together and one must have a reasonable fear that one's life is in imminent jeopardy. In the case of the late Mr. Hattori it is irrelevant that he ended up not being a burglar. He, at the time of his death was doing a credible imitation of a burglar. You act like a burglar, and it is reasonable to expect the residents of the home to be 'afraid'. You act like a burglar who tries to break into an occupied home and it's reasonable to expect that you mean harm to the residents, harm that goes much beyond mere verbal insults.
Post a Comment